Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/1

Request for comments
This is Round One of a three-round Request for Comment (RfC), and it will run for one week. It's a little complicated ... the plan is at WT:Requests_for_adminship/2013_RfC ... but you don't need to follow the whole plan to vote on the current question, which is: what are the main problems with our current requests for adminship process? We're just breaking things down into very broad groups of problems and proposed solutions during this round, and you can add any other broad categories you can think of. (Avoid specific fixes; those will come in the second round.) The closers will be selecting the four, five or possibly six broad categories of problems and solutions that seem to have the most support, and then we'll be focusing on those in the second round.

Each broad category is meant to represent a particular view of "the problem": the first addresses the problem that we haven't achieved consensus on which comments in an RfA aren't constructive, and what to do about them; the second, that we don't have consensus on which people should or shouldn't participate, as voters or in any special roles; and the third, that we don't even have consensus on whether it would be better to do some research or fix some other problem before changing the voting rules at RfA. The closers have the option of rejecting any suggested categories that won't achieve the goal of pulling in large numbers of voters who are likely to be attracted to the view of the "real" problem suggested by that category. At the beginning of Round Two, voters will be instructed to respect that voters in each category are entitled to their own view of what problem they're trying to solve, and should be allowed to work towards addressing that problem, even if others disagree on that entire approach. The closers will sort it all out when we're done. - Dank (push to talk) 05:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

First broad category: Negative comments in RFA discussions
One constant theme in discussions of RfA reform is that some kinds of statements in individual RfAs contribute to a charged atmosphere that discourages qualified Wikipedians from ever running. Proposals have included striking, moving or removing certain comments, with or without striking the accompanying vote.

Support allowing first-category discussions in Round Two

 * 1) Strong support This is a big issue for RfA and definitely should get further discussion. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 14:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, but... I don't think that uncivil statements are the problem. (Not enforcing WP:CIVIL is, but any new rule will have the same enforcement problem.) The "some kinds of statements" that I think add to the charged atmosphere are long statements and especially multiple statements. In any threaded discussion, someone who is willing to post multiple lengthy responses can drive away those who are not willing to make participating in a RfA a full-time job. Everyone should get one vote limited to X words and threaded discussions should be conducted on the RfA talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - This is the primary problem with RfA. ‑Scottywong | communicate _  17:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I also see the number and nature of the comments and questions as a major problem with the current RFA process. I think it would be particularly helpful to have the "questions for the candidate" subjected to some form of moderation, to ensure that RFAs don't devolve into witch-hunts. Some sort of limit on the length and number of comments would also help make the RFA experience less daunting for candidates. --Orlady (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * !!!! - I see that someone redesigned the playing field in the middle of the game. When I commented, the title of this section was only "First broad category" (it didn't contain a description of the item). Now the heading is "First broad category: Negative comments in RFA discussions". My response was not necessarily about "negative comments", but was about comments in general. A major concern for me is comments and questions that are not relevant to the RfA process. --Orlady (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Some questions are definitely not suitable, such as begging the question. Others, though, like random "what's your favorite animated pet" questions, should not be removed. Either we get insight from the answer, or how the answer is avoided. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, despite the temptation to come up with some ironic reason to oppose. I think one of the most important things to acknowledge is that there are some types of comments that will never be acceptable, and I think it's definitely worth discussing if and how we wish to deal with them. Whatever route we take, we need clear-cut guidelines on the appropriate responses (strike, removal, sanctions, etc.) to different types of comments, and this seems like the gateway to that. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  04:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Some negative comments are useful, others are destructive.    So it needs to be discussed. North8000 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - This is the primary problem with RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) This would need to be done deftly, but it sometimes needs to be done. I've seen some nasty attacks in RFAs. In one case it could have been toned down and diff supported and would have done everyone a service by causing that particular RFA to fail. But most of the really nasty stuff damages the process and dissuades others rather than torpedoing the RFA concerned.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers 23:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose allowing first-category discussions

 * 1) Oppose – I feel this is a distraction from more important issues at RFA. —Torchiest talkedits 20:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't think this is really the reason. The "charged" comments are usually dealt with if bad enough, and what seems to dissuade most people I've talked to is something along the lines of "I know I'm too controversial". In other words, they know they'll get a lot of opposes so why bother. (No data here, only anecotes. I'd love to see data. Have any surveys been done?) HaugenErik (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I wouldn't like to see RFA get more complicated than it already is, and agree with Atethnekos' suggestion that it's often the least-civil place on the encyclopedia. Being asked to stand up under pressure and participating in a public hazing—I'm thinking of supporting and opposing votes that seem purely capricious, with sideshow-type arguments—are two very different things. All the best,  Mini  apolis  00:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - ultimately, any comment that says "I don't trust this user because ..." or "This user has demonstrated poor judgement because ..." is going to be intrinsically harsh, but that's an unsolvable problem. Users who've done untrustworthy things or have demonstrated poor judgement shouldn't be admins.  They need to be allowed.  (Moving long discussions to the talk page is allowable, but already happens, so discussing it is pretty pointless). Wily D  11:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose; I don't feel this is a key problem. Everyking (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. I don't think that incivility is a major problem. Rather, good-faith editors note qualities lacking in the candidates and then use that as a basis to oppose. That seems entirely reasonable to me.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  23:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. The process requires editors to vote and give opinions and will result in some views which are seen as 'negative' from the candidate's point of view - if someone has a reason to oppose then it's right that they express it. WP:CIVIL applies - as long as comments are civil, one has to accept opposing views as much as supportive views. --Michig (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) In my limited experience I've found negative statements per se to be a symptom, not a cause. I'd be tempted to discuss banning them if it meant we could avoid the inevitable derail as a negative comment (or an "oppose" without a comment) turns into the same old meta-discussion between RfA regulars. But I doubt we'll achieve that. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Anything at RFA is only a small sample of what will happen if they are approved.  A good (even if harsh) test for the candidate.  For the other participants, its more of a community issue, not RFA specific, on how to address incivility.—Bagumba (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) I really don't want to oppose allowing any kind of discussion, but the very fact that I just said that is a good reason not to disallow criticism of candidates in RfA. There are valid opposes, and not-so-valid ones, but the dividing line is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder might as well be the closing crat. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose - seems to be minor issue.--Staberinde (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose While it is not nice to see negative comments on an RfA, they are sometimes quite useful both as a symptom of something deeper as well as a temperament test. I don't think this is a big deal and am not keen to see negative comments policed in any way.--regentspark (comment) 00:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC) (Note by Wnt (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC): this comment was deleted twice by User:Killerlxt during a spree)
 * 13) Oppose RfA is not a thread at /r/CircleJerk -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose No censorship here. No change is needed; WP:CIVIL applies here just as much as anywhere else. Vaca  tion  9  22:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral, and discussion of first category

 * 1) Doesn't WP:CIVIL apply just as well to RfA?  I would think the standard enforecement procedures for that policy are just as likely to work at RfA as anywhere else (i.e., sometimes well, sometimes not so well, but hopefully well enough).-- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Note for the closers: I started this RfC while WT:Requests for adminship/Clerks was still running because there was support to start this RfC, but I do apologize for the obvious downsides to starting a second RfC when the same topics are already being covered in another RfC. Please consider comments in that RfC when closing this one, to the extent they address the same questions. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) The issues of questions in RfAs and threaded discussion have been mentioned above. We don't currently have a category which caters for format issues such as a limit on the number of questions, suitability of questions, badgering of oppose voters leading to extended arguing rather than simple voting, separating discussion from votes, etc. - I wonder if we need an additional category to cover these issues? I think it's a separate issue to negative comments. --Michig (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) I think it is an issue, which is why I'm not keen to disallow discussion of it, but on the other hand this really a sub-set of the highly divisive discussion related to the value of WP:CIVIL and how to enforce it, and really this needs to be resolved first. RfA is inherently going to involve personal criticism of the candidates but there still needs to be a boundary, and at times it looks like there isn't one. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 00:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Requests for adminship (RFA) is a place where an editor requests the additional tools and responsibilities of adminship. In the discussion concerning the specific request, each commenting editor is to convey whether (and why) they would (or would not) trust the requester with those tools and responsibilities. Due to this, typically the requester's actions, behaviour, and contributions are noted, evaluated, and sometimes discussed. Criticisms (if any) should be of the editor's choices/actions/behaviour. They should not be "to the person (ad hominem) attacks". An edit containing a personal attack should be entirely removed. The editor is welcome to replace the comments with ones which do not attack the person. - jc37 18:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) From my limited exposure, most of the snarking and such seems to come from replies to comments after votes (and mainly in opposes or neutral votes that supporters of a particular candidate may dislike or take issue with for any number of reasons...some possibly good and others having more to do with who cast the vote than the issue at hand). I tend to think along the lines of Michig's comment above...the issue isn't just with negative comments in the votes themselves. Intothatdarkness 22:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Second broad category: Few restrictions in who can participate in RFA
Another constant theme is that removing comments from an RfA sometimes generates drama and shifts the focus from the candidate to disputes among the voters. This line of thinking goes: despite the obvious downsides to restricting anyone from participating in any way, the RfA process will continue to decline if there are no restrictions. Suggestions have included various kinds of elections, minimum qualifications to vote in RfAs, and giving warnings and various types of bans for certain behaviors.

Support allowing second-category discussions in Round Two

 * 1) Support worth consideration. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 14:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I'd be interested in discussing qualifications for voters, though I've not seen convincing evidence that drive-by or newbie voters are a problem, but not the other topics. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support warnings for certain well-defined behaviors, but not for restricting qualifications for voters. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support because of the  part of the prompt warrants, at the very least, a serious discussion.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Restrictions on who can participate is a topic worth discussing. This is not to suggest that newbie editors are a source of problems in the process; rather, I think it is possible that a reduced number of eligible participants could make RfA simpler, which might encourage more RfAs and, thus, more new administrators. --Orlady (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Only if criteria for removing comments is well laid out and there is obvious consensus. It should be used in a very small amount of situations. Vaca  tion  9  22:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support . Other Wikipedias have restrictions, why shouldn't  we? It's clear that  some registered accounts do  little else than contribute to  RfA and then perhaps not  always constructively. Equally  clear is that  some voters appear to  not  understand what  RfA, or even Wikipedia,  is all  about Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose allowing second-category discussions

 * 1) Have we noticed that noob editors are the ones causing problems? I don't think additional restrictions are the way to go; we already have procedures for dealing with problematic behavior, I don't think we need to take that on here in any new way. I don't think elections vs. discussion is good—analyzing a candidates' contributions is a lot of work and I want to see what others have found and discuss how those things should be used to determine how trustworthy/etc a candidate might be. No, I don't think RfA can really be much different than it is today, given what adminship entails. HaugenErik (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Unfortunately, there's little we can do to mandate civility. I wouldn't like to see RFA voting further restricted; the no-IP rule seems sufficient and as HaugenErik has noted, the bitterest arguments seem to occur among seasoned editors (many of whom have extensive, idiosyncratic and sometimes-contradictory criteria of their own).  Mini  apolis  02:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose ‑Scottywong | yak _ 17:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose – Obvious socks and other severely problematic new editors are already handled well enough. —Torchiest talkedits 17:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Torchiest. --regentspark (comment) 00:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Since the wording of the question is fatally flawed (it includes two very different topics in one....restrictions on participation, and guidelines on participation) my "oppose" is based on the main gist of it (restrictions on participation) and also the fatal flaw. North8000 (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose If anyone can edit anyone can help select those who help to manage the place. Doesn't mean individual issues should not be confronted but I'm unclear how rules for exclusion or minimum levels for participation could be framed fairly. Leaky  Caldron  15:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Strong infinitely STRONG oppose - An RfA is to reflect community trust. That means that the potential base of commenters needs to be from the-community-as-a-whole, and not some subset. - jc37 19:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral, and discussion of second category

 * 1) Neutral leaning support - I can't fully support this I don't think. The only limitation on rationales that I can get behind is if a community consensus is established and then someone can point out to the user that their rationale is not supported by consensus. I wouldn't support the removal of their !vote, only to weaken their argument in the eyes of the closing bureaucrat because they have some pre-established consensus to compare to. This overlaps a bit with the 4th broad category in that a consensus on what is and isn't acceptable at RFA might be reached. James086 Talk  22:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I really can't decide whether removing statements or leaving them in is more disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Sometimes an issue, but not really a big deal.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  23:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) ArbCom has been able to issue certain kinds of bans from RfA. I'm not seeing how we would need new definitions of disruptive behavior, specific to RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) New editors aren't a huge issue, and although I do think the community should be more willing to ban users who are persistently disruptive, as it is ArbCom appears to be the only body able to implement such bans. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 00:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Third broad category: Broader problems exist in Wikipedia
Another constant theme is the suggestion that what happens at RfA can only be a reflection of what happens elsewhere on Wikipedia, so trying to "fix RfA" is at best useless and at worst a significant distraction from the real problems. Suggestions have included better training for prospective candidates, greater oversight of administrators, new procedures to remove admin rights, de-bundling the admin tools, and a more thorough investigation of what problems RfA reform is supposed to solve.

Support allowing third-category discussions in Round Two

 * 1) Strong support - And one other issue not mentioned in the intro here was the reduction in new editors coming and staying - I think that this is a major part of the lack of RFA candidates. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support Yes, this should be discussed. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 14:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gets to the root of the issue, IMO. Intothatdarkness 19:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support – A few of the changes suggested here could really open things up and smooth out numerous aspects of Wikipedia functionality, not just RFA. —Torchiest talkedits 20:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support RfAs really aren't that bad; yes, your recent edit history will be scrutinised and someone may pull out a dodgy AfD !vote you made a couple of months ago or say your signature is too flashy, but open incivility or hostility is rare and even more rarely goes unnoticed by other participants. The problem is the decline in volume of applicants (thus promotions) and that's what should be addressed (though that in itself is a reflection of a site-wide problem, i.e. steadily declining editor retention and signup)  Jebus989 ✰ 20:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) If the goal is more admins to clear backlogs, then these kinds of solutions are probably our best bet. It seems—I don't have data, but this is the impression I have—that many people who might make good admins don't run because they think they are "too controversial" and would never pass RfA. But maybe RfA would be more likely to give them a chance if adminship weren't such a big deal—eg if it didn't have so much power (unbundling) or if it was easier to take it back. HaugenErik (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - I believe that the problem lies not only with RfA; something has changed in the encyclopedia as well. James086 Talk  22:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per the above.  James ( T •  C ) • 10:56am • 23:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Support It speaks volumes that many editors capable of wielding the mop well don't want to go through what it takes to obtain it.  Mini  apolis  02:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. A large part of the problem with RfA is the off-putting perception that the process is a traumatic and nasty experience, reinforced by constant harping on about how RfA is 'broken' and needs to be reformed. The two most productive areas to explore are "oversight of administrators, new procedures to remove admin rights" - there is a perception that once someone is given the tools that they won't be removed, however badly an admin acts, and if this was not the case, I think people would be less inclined to oppose candidates. --Michig (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - The declining number of admins is just the declining number of editors. The problem isn't solvable at RfA.  Wily D  11:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Unbundling the admin tools, oversight and de-sysop processes are absolutely the sort of thing we should be discussing in the next round. — sparklism  hey! 14:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Conditional support. Please could others look at my comment below, and see whether the suggestions that I intend to bring to the table fit within this category. If not, I'll create a new category. —WFC— FL wishlist 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. There's a lot included here that merits further discussion. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) Support -- would like to see more standardized methods for removing admins, and debundling tools could work -- view deleted, but not block, for example. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 16) I support further discussion, it does not imply that I support any one suggestion (I like some, I dislike some, I simply think these are worth discussing further) - Nabla (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 17) Support based upon WFC's comment below; I really would like to see discussion on a split into janitorial and judicial roles. I don't want to jump ahead to something that is scheduled for a later round in this RfC, but my own self-evaluation is that, like most people with Asperger's syndrome, I would be instantly shot down in flames as a candidate for judge, but would be perfectly acceptable (and would do a great job!) as a janitor. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 18) Support further discussion. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Some of these issues merit a good airing.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  23:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 20) I don't know how we'll stop this section from devolving into bikeshedding and fatalism but we absolutely have to talk about broader editor trends when thinking about RFA. If anything a decline in new editors and medium term editor retention should motivate us to think harder about adminship. Protonk (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 21) Better oversight would be a good goal.  I have the impression that too much benefit of the doubt is given to potentially rogue admins.—Bagumba (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 22) Strong support. I think just about everything mentioned in the opening of this section is worth examining further. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 23) Support - Certainly some truth to this, and worth discussing, even if meaningful action will be even more challenging. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 00:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 24) I would be much more likely to support an RFA if there was a way of demoting poor admins. As it is, a bad promotion decision means we're permanently saddled with a problem administrator.— S Marshall  T/C 13:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 25) I will be sad if people use this as an excuse to change nothing else, but I do think that there's a lack of trust for fellow users, and that does come into RfA. We can say "AGF" all we want, but we've long stopped thinking that way.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - RfA is probably only part of whole problem.--Staberinde (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 27) Support This should be discussed. I don't fully agree with it (per Scottywong) but this is an issue users have brought up. I see the point as well. Vaca  tion  9  22:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Noting that the question, while trying to be broad, missed the most important question/possibility.   De-bundling the administrative ROLE (the tools are actually ancillary) North8000 (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 29) This is a really broad section, and I support some parts and oppose others. But these things should be at least discussed as a way forward. - jc37 19:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 30) Support further discussion.  ·Add§hore·  <sup style="color:black;">T alk T o M e !  23:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose allowing third-category discussions

 * 1) Oppose - If RfA didn't need "fixing", then this RfC wouldn't exist. <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#222222;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#227722;">| yak _  17:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * RFA may need fixing, but it may not be the only thing which needs fixing. In other words, the root cause is not RFA itself, but RFA does suffer from the same root cause as the rest of Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Guy Macon puts it well in the discussion section below, and It's the other ones' fault is rarely a good way to start reform. Even in a totally messed-up institution, change can come from within. Improve RfA, and the rest might improve along with it. --Pgallert (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) We have one process that doesn't produce the result we like, so we should fix that process. Discussing everything that is problematic will only decrease the chances of us finding consensus about anything. —Kusma (t·c) 18:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - per Scottywong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Mainly per Scottywong. Yes there are lots of other problems on the pedia, but RFA is the canary in our coal mine. Fix RFA and I believe that some of our other problems will dissipate, especially those between the old admin cadre and the new generations of editors who see adminship as out of reach.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 22:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral, and discussion of third category

 * 1) Perhaps eliminating self-nominations would help weed out candidates who are patently unready for the tools and encourage mentoring by an existing admin (or two).  Mini  apolis  02:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I self-nominated and passed RfA. Self-nominated candidates are not doomed to failure, nor are self-nominations indicative of being "patently unready for the tools".  <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#222222;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#227722;">| yak _  17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Self-noms are not the problem. RfA actually  does a reasonably  good job of passing  those who  are ready  for the bit and failing those who are not. The problem  is how the candidates are treated by  the community  whether they look  lke passing  or not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not allowing any self noms would make things worse by losing some good candidates. Not allowing people to self nominate until they have at least 1500 edits would get rid of most of our NotNows. If it could be done in a programmatic way by making wp:RFA only editable by people with over 1500 edits then we could take away some of the stop signs from the process that might actually be scaring off some qualified candidates.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 23:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Procedural observation: by making this question essentially be "other", you pretty much guarantee an overwhelming support vote. Not sure whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't want us to wind up with four categories winning that were all about things other than RfA ... even if the voters believe those problems are more important, this particular RfC is mainly about RfA. If anyone feels any of these really needs to be treated separately, feel free to break it off as a separate category, as long as you can make the case why we need to do that. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I see a few of the supporters above who look to be conflating the issues posed in the first category and those posed in the third (I may be incorrect). A toxic atmosphere at RFA locally is not what this category appears to be about. (It could be argued that Wikipedia as a whole has become more toxic, but I do not see that connection in those users' comments.) See e.g. Miniapolis, Michig. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The first category is about the content of statements in RfA, the third is about things like oversight of admins and a process to remove admin tools. I don't see any conflation. My feeling is that a lot of opposition in RfAs stems from the perception that once given, admin rights don't get taken away. The opposition that candidates are likely to receive is putting people off from going through RfA. The first category is dealing with symptoms without dealing with the causes. The third looks more like practical steps that would give people less reason to oppose RfAs and presumably less reason to post comments that candidates would find hurtful. Just asking people to be nicer won't deal with the underlying issues. This category addresses those issues. --Michig (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm focusing on the problem, which is outlined in the first sentence, which implies that the problem is not RFA itself. It may be the case that the solutions listed in this section do not match the problem if there is that large a difference between my interpretation of the problem stated and your interpretation. --Izno (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Many people oppose candidates because they are unsure about the candidate's ability to do a specific task. I've seen many to the effect of "Not convinced that this excellent vandal fighter has the required content experience/judgement to close a difficult AfD or far-reaching RfC." And at the moment it is a perfectly reasonable oppose, because (Arbcom sanctions aside) there is absolutely nothing to stop an admin from doing these things if he or she chooses, regardless of relevant skills or wiki-experience. I have supported this category in the belief that it would enable discussion on the following two points. One, whether adminship itself should be split into two roles (a primarily janitorial one, and a primarily judicial one). Two, if adminship is to be kept intact, whether we should allow candidates to make binding pledges prior to transcluding the request. —WFC— FL wishlist 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Need to think about this. I'm uneasy about the idea of additional training, more oversight, etc. makes me think that we're just adding more overhead to the encyclopedia building process. Some of us, possibly many of us, don't have the time for this sort of thing and we'll end up with a set of candidates who are here for the joys of adminship :) rather than content building. --regentspark (comment) 00:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fourth broad category: No explicit criteria for adminship
There are no criteria for adminship. Perhaps Wikipedia has outgrown this and there are too many individual opinions on what is needed for adminship. Instead of determining by consensus what the community expects from an administrator, there is a sort of "weekly consensus" based on who turns up to !vote. Candidates don't know how to avoid the criticism and comments suggesting incompetence, which may deter them.

Support allowing fourth-category discussions in Round Two

 * 1) Support – Getting a bare minimum set of requirements could clarify and simplify the process and eliminate a lot of inconsistencies between individual RFAs. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 20:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Sounds like my sentiment too. Deryck C. 22:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as per discussion below. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) I support this although for disclosure I am the one who wrote it. I think if candidates were more confident that they knew what potential opposition they faced because they knew what to aim for then there would be more of them. James086 <sup style="color:#006400;">Talk  22:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - There needs to be a bare minimum, a lot of people have criteria and rationales which expect nothing short of Superman to run at RfA. It drives away competent users and contributes to the element of fear. RfA is meant to be a place for discussion, not bickering over individualised criteria and rationales.  James ( T •  C ) • 10:59am • 23:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) This is something we really need to seriously consider, just to help create a bit more certainty around RfA. 124.168.223.239 (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support As things stand now, whether a candidate has an "easy" or "hard" RFA seems to depend too much on who shows up to vote.  Mini  apolis  02:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support within reason. I'd like to see a slate of requirements resembling those of a job posting. With a job posting, you can apply and maybe even get the job even if you're not quite at 100% in terms of what they're asking for, and on the other hand, meeting those requirements is no guarantee of the job. But community-designed requirements could facilitate more objective voting—"No, you don't meet the requirements" would be an acceptable oppose vote. I just don't want to rule out anyone who wants to reach, although I doubt they'll be too successful without other qualifications. --BDD (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Support for the simple reason that this will force a community discussion and vote consensus tally on such de-facto criteria as content creation and balanced edit counts. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Support discussion. While the above supporters suggest that there should be consensus criteria developed, that is a solution which might or might not solve the problem identified (that we have a "weekly consensus"). --Izno (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Weak support doesn't really address the root of the problem, but it would nevertheless be helpful to have some numerical thresholds based on an average of people's expectations, so that anyone with inflated statistical expectations not representing wider consensus can be given less weight. - filelake shoe  &#xF0F6;  13:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) I support further discussion, it does not imply that there should exist, or not, some criteria. I simply should be clear if it does or not. - Nabla (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Support discussion. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) Support the discussion topic but not the assumptions. There are too many criteria (the union of all sets of individual criteria) rather than too few. --Pgallert (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Sounds like a good idea. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 16) This is worth examining. There are certain categories of support or oppose rationales that are controversial, and it may be worth figuring out how wide or narrow the support for such rationales is within the community at large. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - Not sure if this is a good idea, and I'm even more sceptical on if one could be realistically constructed given the massive gulfs within the community on RfA standards. However, I think its worth a look at. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 00:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. This might very well be an issue. So far we have let participants use whatever criteria they like, but considering that this has led to a dramatic rise in the requirements, it is worth considering whether this is the way it should be. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 19) Support per James (M.O.X) S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 20) Support This may help with the current atmosphere around RFA. There won't be a bunch of different opinions floating around. Vaca  tion  9  22:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 21) Support  Restrictions / requirements are actually a PLUS for qualified candidates. North8000 (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 22) Support this is important. A major part of the mess is that we can't agree what we want to see in a candidate, if we agree a set of criteria then aspirants can measure themselves up against it, run when they believe they are ready and not have people argue as to whether or not they are yet "part of the community".  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 22:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose allowing fourth-category discussions

 * 1) I think broadly the criteria have always been trustworthiness, need for the tools, and knowledge/experience. I don't know of any RFAs where that hasn't been the criteria in any significant way. Regarding minimum edits/etc and avoiding NOTNOW comments, new editors see plenty of warning about this sort of thing before filing an RFA. While somehow blocking (via software) new RfAs w/o nomination for editors with less than 2k edits or some such criteria probably wouldn't do much harm, it really wouldn't solve any significant problems. These seem to be dealt with without much fuss as it is already. HaugenErik (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This proposal wasn't aimed at the NOTNOW candidates, it was aimed at those who might have passed but never tried because they didn't know what was expected. For example "lacking content creation" is a common opposition, if we could loosely quantify this to give the candidates a reasonable idea of what the community expects then it might improve the rate of application. It could also boost confidence because someone opposing for a reason that isn't supported by the community-agreed requirements would be called on it. The actual implementation is still up in the air, but the point was to increase participation, not eliminate the RfAs that are obviously going to fail. I agree that the NOTNOW RfAs are handled just fine already. James086 <sup style="color:#006400;">Talk  20:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm; I'm even more confused. Are we contemplating a set of hard-and-fast milestones beyond which RfA is guaranteed success? If so then no, I don't think we ought to do it, because a lot of the time it comes down to analyzing the candidate's judgement when, for example, reporting vandalism or something. That is hard to quantify. RfA probably can't ever be a checklist like that. Or is the idea a minimum threshold to even be allowed to run? If so, then again, no, since it will likely end up being a lot harder to pass RFA than just getting to those minimums, so the purpose here is defeated. I think the best way to inform people of what is required is something like what candidates are already directed to when applying: Advice_for_RfA_candidates. Perhaps that can be beefed up with more precise information, I'm not sure. I doubt there's much else we can do along these lines. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 03:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This category is trying to identify (one of) the problem(s) with RfA rather than be a specific solution. In a later round of discussion someone may propose a checklist, although I wouldn't support a checklist method either. The problem I see with existing guides to RFA (1, 2, 3, probably more) is that they aren't based on the community consensus, just on what the authors think is consensus. No official effort has been made to quantify what is required. If this category is carried out it might lead to a beefed up guide that can be referred to (so if you oppose for a reason that is counter to the established consensus the bureaucrats can see that), it might create hard criteria like your example, it might result in strict rules about what can and can't support/oppose for, it might not come to anything. That will be decided later, the point of this category is to decide if the current method where everyone has their own criteria is one of the problems and warrants further discussion or are we barking up the wrong tree with this approach. James086 <sup style="color:#006400;">Talk  14:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, is anyone seriously suggesting that we require voters to use a certain criteria? Is that what this is about? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Someone could in the 2nd stage of this RFC. If it were a case of "if you have 3000 edits and no blocks then you can be admin" then the proposal would get shot down. This isn't a specific proposal at this stage though. I'm more interested in gauging the community's expectations in a more quantifiable manner than is currently available. That way we can see if a lone user is against consensus or with it in their views because we would know what the consensus is. James086 <sup style="color:#006400;">Talk  17:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * James, I realize there's nothing specific. I'm trying to understand what kinds of things people are envisioning here. I'm having trouble imagining anything remotely useful, so I'm opposing—for example, lone users who oppose are already effectively ignored, so there doesn't seem to be a problem to solve there. Other supporters envision a world where There won't be a bunch of different opinions floating around.—doesn't seem plausible. Either of those interpretations of cat4 appear to be non-starters—are there other interpretations of this? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of determining criteria that would be referenced. For example "3000 edits is enough" then if someone opposes because "only has 4000 edits" it can be clearly demonstrated that the community consensus is against that rationale. The criteria wouldn't just be for edit count of course, we'd have to see what the community could agree upon. This would hopefully make candidates more confident because they can see that they have enough "xfd participation" or whatever. Whether the participation was good or not isn't addressed by this and may still be cause for concern, but it can hopefully eliminate some opposition both by stopping those who oppose harsher than the community expects and because the candidates can know if they meet the community's expectations or not. Of course I don't envisage a tick-the-boxes type application, other issues may be raised unrelated to the criteria, but it could help quantify the common ones. James086 <sup style="color:#006400;">Talk  13:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok; thanks. I'm opposed then: I don't think much of the criteria used at RFA can be quantified like this. This kind of thing seems likely to make people think they can pass RFA because they meet the "criteria", when such a checklist will only ever be a tiny percentage of what people at RFA consider. SoV says it well. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I'm opposed to the idea of official criteria. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 20:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose RfA already picks the right candidates. That part of RfA isn't broken.  The part that is broken is that too many voters don't know how to constructively criticize candidates they oppose, and most editors (understandably) don't want to subject themselves to nonconstructive criticism.  <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#222222;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#227722;">| gab _  17:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose -- If you don't know what RFA is like, you shouldn't be filing there. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk)  22:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I don't see a problem here. Overall, similar standards are applied, regardless of which week the RfA is in.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  00:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) I dislike the idea of official criteria because I feel it would mostly consist of quantifiable metrics such as edit count that are actually quite meaningless and that are easily gamed.  Or, if there is an edit count criterion, it should be substantially lower than what we typically use.  -- Cyde Weys  16:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose what Cyce and Sarek above say. --regentspark (comment) 00:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Can't think of any official criteria that might be useful. Probably we'd end up with some number-based nonsense, as Cyde said. A hard-coded "must be here six weeks and have 200 edits" is unlikely to be necessary, and anything much higher is likely to unnecessarily weed out a good candidate. —Kusma (t·c) 18:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Every admin is different, and each contributes in their own way. I don't think I know of any admin that actually patrols all areas requiring administrator attention. Most just stick to one or two areas that they know very well. The only criteria that could possibly accommodate this would be so overwhelming that either nobody would meet it, or it would be useless. Admins don't need to know and do every last thing on Wikipedia before they become an admin. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 08:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Although the bar is set anew at each  RfA on  the combined criteria that  depends on  who  turns out  to  vote, the objective comments based on the  criteria and research of serious voters  carry  a lot  of weight. RfA actually  does a good job of passing  those who  are ready  for the bit and failing  those who  aren't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. An essential part of readiness is the ability to understand current community requirements. This involves having read all available RfA guidance, recent successful and unsuccessful RfAs and obtained guidance from some of the well trusted editors who can offer honest advice on suitability. A set of technical entry criteria should not act as a substitute for these more practical measures. Leaky  Caldron  13:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) I oppose edit counting, period full stop, for a host of reasons, including some already mentions. And I despair of anyone coming up with a definition of "experienced editor". Maturity, discernment, and other trust building features of a person are just not something which is "countable". - jc37 19:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral, and discussion of fourth category

 * 1) This category seems to have missed the idea of the others. We are attempting to identify the problems, not the solutions, here. --Izno (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, I have reworded it to be more about one of the problems I perceive. For clarity, this is the oldid when Izno commented. James086 <sup style="color:#006400;">Talk  19:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On a side note, this problem is one I'm not sure has been identified in this way. I know that it has been identified as "the voters are too inconsistent", but this casts that problem in a different light. Great thought here. --Izno (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I suppose many would be willing to help out with administrator duties, but are not entirely sure how they would start meeting the requirements to become one. So trustworthiness is a requirement.  Well, most people know they are trustworthy: that doesn't seem to be the question.  The question is how do you demonstrate this trustworthiness? When I read unsuccessful RfAs I see opposition based on a very great number of points. Even if you can go through all the RfAs and detail the very many different grounds for opposition, how is one to know what of the points were considered relevant by closers?  Some opposition is stated even without any reasoning, and this is a practice that is defended at RfA.  So there are no official requirements, and the de facto requirements as borne out in RfA seem to be largely inscrutable.  How is someone who wants to start helping supposed know how to build up their resume, so to speak, so that they may have a chance at a successful RfA? If one must never mischaracterise an edit as vandalism (some unsuccessful RfAs seem to hinge on just one instance of misclassification), then why not have this as a requirement?  If you must never fix an instance of vandalism while failing to report the inappropriate username of the vandal (I recall an unsuccessful RfA where the bulk of opposition was this), then why not list this as a requirement (although I think that is a questionable one)?  If one must always leave a message when reverting for vandalism (this comes up again and again), then why not make this known?  It's definitely not common practice.  Information like this etc. could be very useful to people who may want to become admins, so they don't sink their chances out of ignorance. So maybe official requirements are not needed, but how about a detailed and relatively thorough list of what the actual requirements are?  I would be willing to start compiling such a list if others would want to join in:  We go through unsuccessful RfAs of the past few years and categorise all the grounds for opposition that occur therein with reference to the edit histories of the nominees.  This can be linked at the top of RfA and elsewhere and then admin hopefuls can know relatively easily what it takes.  This is different from the WP:GRFA, because this would be thorough and give detailed requirements, and not merely general remarks. This still has the problem of identifying what opposition was considered relevant to the closers, however.-- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The specific course of action to be decided in the later parts of the RFC. This first part is just to get the community to decide whether or not this is a problem that warrants further discussion or whether it's a non-issue that's not worth wasting time on :) James086 <sup style="color:#006400;">Talk  22:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I find the Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions essay useful in evaluating a candidate; additional must-haves such as content creation and high, perfectly-balanced edit counts set the bar unrealistically high.  Mini  apolis  02:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Beyond a bare minimum of experience (which will be obvious to any serious candidate), there seem to be genuine differences of opinion as to what experience and qualities to look for in an admin candidate; I don't see a meaningful community consensus emerging here. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That might be the answer. If we all got together and determined that there is no consensus that X is or is not a requirement, the closers could take that into account when evaluating votes that are based on a candidate lacking X. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't really get, I suppose, why people think editors with a couple dozen edits standing at RfA and getting shot down is really a problem that needs solving (I suspect they're all not long for this wiki, anyhow), but I can't see what's objectionable about creating a guideline that says "You really should have at least ~3000 edits and ~six months experience, or your RfA is doomed.", as long as it's done in accordance with WP:IAR and the fifth pillar. I don't see that it's necessary to have a big RfC to write such an essay, though.  (And as anything more than advice, it's bad practice).  So I can't really support the idea here, either. Wily D  09:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not the problem I'm trying to address with this proposal. I am interested in the candidates that wouldn't be snow closed, but they don't run anyway because they think they won't make it. If there were quantifiable criteria that the community agreed upon then admin potentials could measure themselves against it. It would also provide bureaucrats with a set of consensus approved criteria to consider when deciding on each RfA. This isn't a specific proposal because at this stage of the RFC we want to decide if it's worth discussing this further. James086 <sup style="color:#006400;">Talk  14:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as I say, if you just want to write an essay Are you a plausible admin candidate?, I don't think it needs an RfC. That case is covered here.  Wily D  14:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't think it will be possible to get consensus on clear-cut criteria for adminship, but it may be useful to seek agreement on minimum criteria for seeking adminship (i.e. starting an RfA) based on experience and contributions (length of time on the project, edits, recent blocks, etc.). This wouldn't have a huge effect though, beyond discouraging obviously premature nominations. --Michig (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I want to discuss it, but I'm worried the discussion will be fruitless or the outcome will be problematic. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Good luck.  The same complaint can be made about AfDs, and it's already full of cited acronyms.—Bagumba (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Fifth broad category: Consensus-style discussions don't work with so many participants
The main problem with RFA is that it attempts to be a consensus-based process and a vote at the same time, and succeeds at neither: there are too many people involved in these things for a consensus-based process to work, but the process has not evolved into a proper vote. Because the process is rooted in the idea of achieving consensus, the level of support needed for success is unreasonably high, and to make matters worse, there isn't even a fixed and clear level of support needed to succeed.

Support allowing fifth-category discussions in Round Two

 * 1) [nominator] Everyking (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) It kind of fits in the third category (as it is a general WP problem), and similar to the second, but I think this one is clearer. (PS: has above, I support the idea of discussing this further, not any detail in itself)- Nabla (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I'd like to talk about this, but I don't actually know how much I agree with the idea. I mean...I agree with it! But I'm not sure if I can find elements of the idea which I agree with that are actionable in RfA. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) One of the main problems, so it should be discussed. While voting about content is not only evil, but actually stupid, it is often (on Wikipedia as in the real world) better to base decisions about people on voting, not consensus. Do all of those who oppose even //discussing// this think we should move to a consensus-based system for ArbCom elections? —Kusma (t·c) 17:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) The premise of mixed discussion/voting is rather evil. Ideas, such as splitting RFAs into a strict "voting" section (with no comments whatsoever) and "discussion", or forbidding threaded discussion in votes, etc. should be brought forward to improve on this. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose allowing fifth-category discussions

 * 1) I don't know of any reason to believe the level of support currently needed is unreasonably high? Regarding clarity, I think it's a proper enough vote: it's essentially a 75% cutoff with the 'crat having a ~5% supervote. What problems does this cause? I don't think there are any real problems to be solved by changing or discussing this. HaugenErik (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) This is one of those "yeah, it would be nice to fix that" problems, but I just don't see it as being "the problem". Fix this and the RfA process will still be badly broken. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I am happy with the current level of consensus required and the discretion of bureaucrats in the grey area.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  00:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) I think a reasoned consensus is more likely with a larger pool of respondents. RFA has serious problems, but I don't think this is one of them.  Mini  apolis  17:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) For genuine consensus to be reached you need many participants. You will rarely get a large number of people to agree totally but while we are only looking for a significant majority this isn't a problem. --Michig (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) This doesn't seem like a fruitful avenue for discussion. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Needing 70-80% support addresses large number of participants;  unanimous support is not needed.—Bagumba (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Well, it's good to have more participants, not fewer, and there does need to be discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree on both counts. This argument doesn't contradict that. Everyking (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The "it's a discussion" vs. "it's a vote" debate has been going for about a decade now, and barring the situation in which RfA is completely revolutionised to make the issue mute (e.g. a jury system is adopted), then a strong move in either direction is unlikely and would probably cause as many problems as it solves. Therefore, I'm generally of the opinion that the hybrid system should remain. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 00:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't think that the premise of this point jives with the basic tenants of Wikipedia.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't use consensus everywhere, nor should we. It's a good thing at a basic level, but it doesn't work well for everything. We don't use it for ArbCom elections, for example. Everyking (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Isn't it working? Voting is never going to work because this isn't and shouldn't be a popularity contest. --regentspark (comment) 00:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose It already works fine. As RegentsPark said, voting strays away from the idea of RFA. Vaca  tion  9  22:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The consensus based system is used across Wikipedia is fuzzy and with flaws, but is also essential.  No reasons to challenge it just here unless you challenge it's entire use in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose . If you  go  for a job  interview of the kind that is conducted by a panel, what  do you get? A candidate states his claim for suitability for the job, the panel asks some questions, goes off and deliberates, and votes. The only difference here is that the 'panel's' (the voters) discussion is in  the open. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Scrutiny is essential. Leaky  Caldron  15:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong oppose - Simply, NOTAVOTE. - jc37 19:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - I understand what you mean, but I don't understand why it's a problem, or why it needs to be "fixed" or changed. Admittedly, consensus processes break down when too many editors participate, but I think that the RfA process has evolved nicely over the years, and works just fine.  <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#447744;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#444444;">| converse _  20:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. The current process (and the discussion it creates) works just fine, we don't need to WP:POLL. — sparklism hey! 12:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sixth broad category: Looking for candidates and providing useful information
Apart from the fourth category, I'm not seeing discussion of the noncontroversial, easy-consensus things that would increase the effectiveness of RfA: finding candidates, giving them good information, making RfA less impenetrable, etc. There are a lot of simple things that work well that aren't getting done. (Judging from the responses in the fourth category, there are some difficult trade-offs and judgment calls to make there. This category is for things where the problem isn't that there's broad disagreement, the problem is that simple things are simply not getting done.)

Support allowing sixth-category discussions in Round Two

 * 1) Sounds like a no-brainer, but it might help to discuss why we're doing a lot less outreach and education than we used to, how to respect consensus while doing it, and how to track what is and isn't getting done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - If a few small improvements are all that can be made, then we should make them rather than disregarding them because it doesn't completely fix the problem. A small improvement is better than nothing. James086 <sup style="color:#006400;">Talk  17:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The top of this page says "The current question [is], what are the main problems with our current requests for adminship process?" Deciding that something is not one of the major problems that the next round of this RfC should address in no way implies that that something is not worth doing. I would say that at this point we should not only weed out the obvious "not a problem" issues but also the obvious "everyone agrees that this is a problem and on the solution to it" issues. Those are not worth discussing in an RfC either. See Triage. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We used to be good at outreach and education (except that we accidentally raised the bar in the process). We definitely aren't now, and that does strike me as one of the main problems with our RfA process. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Among other pluses, mentoring and recruitment would discourage self-noms and reduce much RFA drama.  Mini  apolis  17:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) In conjunction with some of the ideas in category three, this could help and would be worth discussing. It can be difficult to gain experience in some admin areas without being an admin, which becomes a catch-22 situation. Finding ways of getting non-admins more involved in admin-type work would be worthwhile in itself and would better prepare people for RfA. --Michig (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support – Although no RfC is required for a group of volunteers to get together and start scouting and approaching candidates  Jebus989 ✰ 20:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) It can't hurt. I'm not sure whether we should mandate it before becoming a candidate, but it's worth examining. Counter-argument: the low level of participation of RfA participants at editor review. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Certainly worth considering. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 01:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) We should discuss what we want RfA to do, and how to accomplish that. Whatever the new RfA will be like, we'll need candidates, and a concerted effort to get people to become nominators might be good. Maybe we should expect admins to nominate someone every now and then -- not as a rule, but as part of being a good admin. —Kusma (t·c) 18:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Worth considering. Vaca  tion  9  22:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Should be discussed. North8000 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Some admins already reach out to potential candidates of the right calibre, in fact  quite a lot of it  goes on in  the background. The problem is that  the responses from  those asked is almost always that they are not prepared to have their otherwise good work torn to shreds by uncivil or incompetent voters. That said, some of them are already over-qualified and will have gained possible single purpose oppose votes for just having done their job in  meta areas correctly. A few of those who had the courage to take  the risk were so abused at RfA that they are no longer with us. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - although I have to say I am very confused by this whole set of proposals. Deb (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Support – It's possible there are people that would make good admins who just haven't thought of looking into the RfA process in the first place. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 18:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose allowing sixth-category discussions

 * 1) I oppose discussing this for two reasons. First, the RfA process itself cannot materially influence the willingness of admins to mentor prospective candidates or the willingness of those candidates to undergo a mentorship. Neither can it influence our ability or willingness to monitor new admins. The admin coaching project had (I'm assuming it's moribund, haven't checked in a while) some obvious benefits and some unforeseen consequences but it really only had an impact on RfA during the period when there was a social convention that "admin coaching" was a necessary wicket to pass through before seeking a nomination. That leads into the second problem. I don't really want to resurrect that social convention, mainly because it quickly morphed into a little game theory problem where RfA regulars knew that candidates knew coaching was necessary, so they became suspicious (sometimes vocally so) that candidates were using the admin coaching experience to "check a box." Basically, exactly what happened to us with deletion discussion experience and experience with semi-automated vandalism tools. That backlash sucked for everyone involved. It made the discussions more meta and hazy, it placed undue scrutiny on candidates on an area where they had no actionable response and it forced candidates to play a guessing game over what the current consensus expectations about RfA would be. Guess wrong by not being mentored and you're criticized. Guess wrong by seeking a mentorship and you have to face accusations that you're seeking the tools as a trophy. Very little about that experience was good. And I don't think it was (in the net) a positive element even when you include the benefit editors got from offering and receiving mentorships. Protonk (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. In my opinion, the votes above are confusing two entirely different questions: [A] Is this a good thing that would help with our RfA process?, and [B] Is there the slightest possibility that this is within the power of this RfC to change? The answer to [B] is a sad, sad, no. No conceivable result from this RfC will have the slightest effect on whether we have enough recruitment/mentoring of potential admins. Because of this, discussing this further is a waste of effort, even if we all agree that this is a major problem --Guy Macon (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Not sure whether votes confused two different issues or whether title change in the middle of the RfC just makes it seem that way. Rethinking position. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral, and discussion of sixth category

 * Replying to Protonk: I agree, and I'm not suggesting we resurrect mentorship, I'm only suggesting that we make an attempt to get accurate information to people on what has happened in recent RfAs, and let them come to their own conclustions what they do or don't want to work on. I hope that at least one of the categories that survives into Round Two will support discussions like this one; it would be a shame to be talking about everything else but not the things we've found have made the most difference in the past. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do worry that I'm jumping the gun a bit. But I think my first point that RfA policy/procedure has limited interface with the kind of mentorships we might actually want is germane to round one. The second point may have been piling on. :) Protonk (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha, I had missed that someone changed the section title to include "mentoring" halfway through. I've changed the title to something more neutral. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Seventh broad category: The standards for RFA are too high
Simply put, the problem is that the standards for passing RFA are too high. This affects individual RFAs by making them less likely to pass, but more importantly, it sets the bar so high that for every one person that doesn't pass, at least five others are discouraged from even running for RFA in the first place because it's so difficult. In the end only the truly exceptional people even put themselves through the process, and everyone else, the vast majority of whom would be perfectly acceptable, doesn't even bother. We have lots of qualified editors out there; the problem is just that we don't give out the tools easily enough.

Support allowing 7th-category discussions in Round Two

 * 1) Support as nominator.  -- Cyde Weys  16:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I certainly agree that standards are too high. James086 <sup style="color:#006400;">Talk  17:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Definitely; while there are several generally-agreed criteria for adminship (as there certainly should be), individual editors' additional criteria (at least some of which contradicts that of other editors) makes trying to be all things to all people (which is what RFA has become) needlessly stressful.  Mini  apolis  18:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - this is largely what I was saying in category five, but yeah. Everyking (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Due to the current system, the standards of RfA (defined as what is needed to realistically pass one) are higher than what the vast majority of users think the standard should be, as a minority of users who have higher-than-the-norm standards can sink a candidacy, which sometimes creates the illusion that the standards of the average voter are higher than they actually are. This is more an observation than a criticism, but I think it's worth discussing. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 01:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Some years back three months and 3000 edits was enough to make me an admin. Today, candidates with that experience are met with "too soon", and "not now", with claims of them being far too inexperienced. The demand is now in the order of years of experience, and tens of thousands of edits. The bar has risen dramatically over the years, and I think that is causing trouble in obtaining nominations. Incredibly, I agree with Cyde on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - This is a worthy topic for discussion, I think. S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - definitely something we should discuss further. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Makes sense. Not sure what we can do about it since the standards are unwritten, but worth discussing. --regentspark (comment) 00:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) This is true, and made worse by the demand to "give a reason for an oppose vote": people give a ridiculous "reason" like "only 4000 edits" or "no FAs". As these opposes are (for good reasons) not always given the ridicule they deserve, people start thinking that making RfAs hard by applying such arbitrary "standards" is actually useful. —Kusma (t·c) 18:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong Support Adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL. Vaca  tion  9  22:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Support The defacto standards are are actually a complete mis-fire  They are too high in worthless areas ("have you kept your head low?" and "popularity contest") and too low in other areas. (e.g. has exhibited good judgement, duty-above-self-interest, broad understanding) So despite the bad title I guess that supporting this is the only way to get standards more broadly discussed. North8000 (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Support over anything else. Wizardman  03:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) Support We need to discuss the standard of RFA, broadly speaking. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Long since believed this. Most people here can be trusted not to blow things up. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 08:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 16) I don't quite support all the statements or even all the premises of the above. But I do think some of this could be discussed. - jc37 19:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 17) Support  ·Add§hore· ' <sup style="color:black;">T alk T o M e !  23:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 18) Support discussion of this, but I think it's related to category three, in which we need to make it easier both to gain the tools and to have them removed. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 18:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 19) Some standards are too high, mainly the most easily measured ones such as tenure and editcount and the question section. Other standards that are more closely related to whether people would make good admins are too low, or rather the community has become so focussed on recent edits and arbitrary criteria that RFA is easily gameable. I worry that too few actually check the candidate's contributions.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 22:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose allowing 7th-category discussions

 * 1) Oppose – I don't think this is the case anymore. I hope he wouldn't mind me using him as an example, but our last promotion had been editing seriously for just over a year, had 6,000 edits and broke 3RR during his RfA. I'm sure he'll be a great admin but I don't think that reflects an extemely high bar for only "truly exceptional people"; though I understand how this view can be propagated by minor oppose points  Jebus989 ✰ 21:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Actually, I'm not sure whether I belong in support, oppose, or neutral. If editors do not trust a candidate, then no, the standards are not too high. On the other hand, if we could unbundle some of the tools, then... --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - A job for life with a block button? Standards cannot be too high. It's not about edit counts, it's about maturity and trust.  Leaky  Caldron  20:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) The standards are exactly as high as people want them to be, hence the votes! No RFCs are going to change everyone's opinion or voting habits, so how can this be fruitful? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 05:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - There have been enough misfires in the past when standards were lower to suggest that the bar needs to be high. Just reducing the criteria  and then making  it  easier to  desysop is not  a viable solution - the cowboys need to  be kept away from the tools and responsibility  of adminship right from the start. Besides which, a lower bar  would just  increase the flood of hat-collectors and add to  the bureaucratic work load having to desysop  more rogue admins. As Leaky says, it's about maturity and trust. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Per Leaky and Kudpung mostly. If there's no simple way to remove powers, they shouldn't be simple to get. Intothatdarkness 23:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose standards have risen commensurate with Wikipedia's role in the real world. Where Wikipedia biographies are getting people detained at aeroports, we can't (and shouldn't) take a "ah - whatever" role to administration. Given that editors end up admins at roughly the old rate anyhow - standards aren't a problem anyhow.  Wily D  11:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral, and discussion of 7th category

 * 1) If some of the other ideas around making adminship less of a big deal, such as oversight and desysopping procedures (and admin probation?), were put in place, people might see supporting candidates as less 'risky', which means that they may get less opposition. The only standard currently is a convincing consensus, and I don't see that as something that should be lowered. --Michig (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My preferred solution is having a probationary period for all new admins, such that giving someone the mop isn't nearly as big of a deal as it is now, where we give it for life unless the person messes up so badly as to be desysopped at ArbCom. But that takes place in step 2 of the RFA process, not step 1.  The standard of achieving a convincing consensus will be more easily met if people aren't so wary of giving the tools.  Maybe my phrasing of "standards are too high" isn't exactly perfect, but do you agree with the general thrust?  -- Cyde Weys  20:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, but the standards here beyond the need for consensus are editors' individual standards, and I think these are symptomatic of other issues around adminship and not something that can really be addressed by an RfC. --Michig (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think a probationary period would be a solution. Anyone who  obtained the bit  for the wrong  reasons would just  need to  sit  out  the probation period without  doing  anything. If  they  do  make mistakes during  probation, it  would just  add to  bureaucratic load of having  to do something  about  it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Perhaps I don't understand the structure of the RFC but what distinguishes this category from categories 2 and 4? Protonk (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Category 2 is just completely unrelated; I don't see any connection. Category 4 states that we should have explicit criteria (which is actually a solution, not a problem, but I disregard that for a moment), which is distinct from "the criteria that everyone has in their heads are too high" (this category) -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 08:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused here. The standards for RFA are where they are exactly because that's what people who vote at RFA think. What kinds of things do the supporters here envision doing to change their minds? Or where else do people see this going? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)